Freedom of Speech

I know, odd topic for a personal finance blog, but a couple things in the news got me thinking about free speech. What does free speech really mean? Seems even the federal courts aren’t completely sure.

It’s Definitely Not…

Read the whole story here.

I think many of us would agree that vandalizing someone else’s car is not protected under free speech.

But Harrison, and likely others, think it is.

It Get’s Grey Quickly

I hadn’t heard of Charlie Kirk before last week. But apparently he’s been in the spotlight.

I understand that he’s controversial. I started to look into him and read some conflicting thoughts.

Here’s the part that gets tricky for me. From the Mother Jones article:

How do we define falsehoods? Or racist, or bigoted?

If I believe something to be true, and you don’t, you may see it as a falsehood.

I advocated for using a power buffer in my post on car detailing. There are some who would prefer to hand-buff their vehicle. Who’s right? Am I guilty of promoting falsehoods? Should I be silenced?

“Racist and bigoted statements” is a grey area. Cohen v. California which is cited in the example above allows for use of certain offensive words to convey a political message. What do those words mean? Is it universal?

I remember when I was a kid watching a fight on TV with my dad. My dad laughed at the announcer because he kept referring to the fighter in the off-white trunks. The other fighter was in white trunks. And, by the way, one was a big white dude and the other was a big black dude.

I don’t think we need to explore any further, my point is that racist or bigoted is defined differently depending on the person and their experiences. And, many of us are overly sensitized to this. While in many homes, I’m sure fight watchers were referring to the contestants in terms other than the color of their trunks. And were perfectly OK with that.

Another Example

As a parent and grandparent, I’m horrified by some of the things going on on social media. There was a high school boy who took a spicy chip challenge and died last year. Read here.

I read another this morning where kids were setting themselves on fire and jumping into water.

One of the comments on the news article was something about letting Darwin prevail.

For those unfamiliar, unofficial Darwin awards are given out for extraordinarily idiotic behavior that will likely lead to the peril of the person instigating. You can read some examples here.

Here’s one:

These usually happen in Florida, and usually start with “Hey guys, watch this!”

But, commenting publicly about children setting themselves on fire and advocating that this is weeding out the unfit for survival, seems harsh.

Social Media

I don’t have a Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram or other social media account. I don’t use social media, but I am aware of it.

But even before social media, I recognized that a lot of things people were willing to say in a newspaper article or a TV program were things they might not say directly to the person they were addressing.

I may be perfectly willing to write a newspaper editorial about how I hate a certain politician, but I’d probably be less likely to use those same words if I were standing face to face with that same politician.

Social media, and media in general, gives us some distance and safety to say inflammatory things and not face consequences.

Same for driving. I may be perfectly comfortable flipping you the bird for cutting me off. Would I do the same if we were in the sidewalk? Probably not.

Consequences

Our actions have consequences. Tell that to Ken Barger.

Our words do too.

And even if our speech is free, we open ourselves up to consequences. I’ve seen examples recently with an MSNBC host and a local teacher who lost their jobs due to their speech regarding Charlie Kirk.

I believe that they are within their rights to say what they want, even if I, and others may find it distasteful. But I also think that folks need to be accountable for their words.

People shouldn’t be arrested for what they say. But I don’t think we can legislate how other private citizens react to them.

My employers were always very clear that I was a representative of the company. While I didn’t have my lawyer review my contract, I knew that the spirit of the message was that I should act and speak in a way that doesn’t embarrass the company, and if I do, there will be consequences.

As a representative of a media outlet, you can say:

But the media outlet has the right to distance themselves from that message. And they may choose to do so by firing you.

Free Speech

I think free speech gives us the right to say what we think. And that’s important.

But I don’t think it gives us the right to say it with impunity. Harrison Grant felt it was his right to deface other people’s property. That is legally incorrect. There is a law against damaging property.

For the other examples it gets tricky.

I have free speech rights, but employers have a responsibility to protect their corporate image.

If I flip you off for cutting me off while walking down the street and you retaliate, some may say I deserved it. Some will say I didn’t. It’s grey.

Wrap Up

If you were hoping for an answer, I apologize. Read one of the finance posts. I always try to provide some education or thoughts to help.

I do think social media provides a platform and a level of abstraction that allows people to say things that they might not say one on one.

I also think we need to desensitize a bit. It’s OK to respect someone’s right to say things, and to disagree with what they have to say.

I had never heard of Charlie Kirk before last week. After his death, I started reading. I disliked some things that he’s said, some I liked. But I respect his right to say it and to advocate for his personal message.

And really, who am I to judge?

Again, let’s blame social media. We follow people. Everyone wants to be a follower.

That’s funny to me. Growing up, we all wanted to be leaders. Everyone competed fiercely to be captain of the team.

As a follower, we want to align ourselves to leaders who we like. And while we adapt to that, we also become averse to things that don’t align with our adopted philosophy.

And we’re not good at dealing with this conflict. If we follow this person, or this party, or this ideal, then anything that goes against it must be wrong.

We’re in a difficult time.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please comment below.